coin-god

The universe itself, everything we know and live in, just came out of no where? I'm not a math or science person, so that whole notion just sounds, well, ridiculous to my ears.

Read something about Quantum Mechanics (Very interesting subject, I migth study Physhics once I finish Computer Sscience), even a wiki article. Particles, on a subatomic level, can appear from nowhere.And, as allways, the idea of "I can't explain how it all started, so god did it." is nonsense. If god created the universe, who created god? If you say "He's allways beed there." I can say the same thing about the Universe, allways there and it's not the first time it goes bang.

3niX

Im not a physicist either (so whatever I say has little to no authority on the subject). However, I am willing to chip in some thoughts.

The appearance and disappearance of subatomic particles could be related to how we perceive the world. Its just what we can observe and might represent only a fraction of what is really going on. Quantum mechanics has some seriously mind-bending stuff which seems nigh impossible to figure out. And most of the stuff that tries to explain it is strictly theoretical anyway. Its an endless rabbit hole. Seriously, youll just end up with more questions than answers.

QUOTE

I can say the same thing about the Universe, allways there and it's not the first time it goes bang.

Im pretty certain that scientists are near to/have already ruled this out. The problem is that the universe seems to be expanding at an accelerating rate.

d0mm2k8

The problem I have with religion is that it offers no real solutions to any problems. Blaming everything on God and praying doesn't help anyone at all, and this is even more so blatantly obvious when you have an inkling of understand about how the world, life and the universe works.I'm a firm believer that anything in existence is possible, even a God, but through my perspective I've deemed such things so improbable that my sentience can't make use of it.

DeeperRed

Where did we come from then? We just popped up spontaneously? The universe itself, everything we know and live in, just came out of no where? I'm not a math or science person, so that whole notion just sounds, well, ridiculous to my ears.

So who created god ? I mean you can't say the universe coming from nothing is stupid but god coming from nothing is perfectly believable..

Tyler

No one is really able to argue the aspects that lead someone to believe in a god, being that faith happens to not need evidence. But a more pressing issue for religion in my mind is the organized sects and movements that provide a huge amount of effect on the societies they are bred in. Wars over interpretations of the Holy Word, self-starvation (be it physically or otherwise), arguable child abuse. All are very serious claims that I think someone who professes to a religion should be at least partially informed on and able to provide an explanation better than 'God wants it'.

coin-god

I honestly tried to look at it with an open mind. But after 7 minutes I couldn't take it anymore.That guy is completly wrong. He is just trying to make Evolution look stupid. He has no idea of what it is, since he is also talking about the Origing of the Universe and life as if Evolution had anything to do with that!

I can't believe some Religious people think like this guy, I just can't. Thank god I'm not American. Thanks god there isn't Religious nuts like this in my Country.

I honestly tried to look at it with an open mind. But after 7 minutes I couldn't take it anymore.That guy is completly wrong. He is just trying to make Evolution look stupid. He has no idea of what it is, since he is also talking about the Origing of the Universe and life as if Evolution had anything to do with that!

I can't believe some Religious people think like this guy, I just can't. Thank god I'm not American. Thanks god there isn't Religious nuts like this in my Country.

Jeeebuuus

I have an honest and unbiased question and I've asked it before here but no one answered. Why does existence exist? Why does sentience exist? As opposed to it not existing. I would like either the religious(don't care what religion) or the scientific(don't care what branch).

Irviding

I have an honest and unbiased question and I've asked it before here but no one answered. Why does existence exist? Why does sentience exist? As opposed to it not existing. I would like either the religious(don't care what religion) or the scientific(don't care what branch).

That's why I just don't see science as having all the answers. I had to take Chemistry last quarter for a science credit, and the professor said something that stuck with me - we use religion to teach morals, have something to believe in and empower us, and answer questions science can't answer. For me, I use my deistic-Catholicism to answer those questions. I find it funny how people even jump on me for my religious beliefs, which in the states are probably considered almost as bad as an atheist (atheists aren't really well liked here, even in the North where I'm from, maybe in New England but not in NY for sure)

Robinski

I have an honest and unbiased question and I've asked it before here but no one answered. Why does existence exist? Why does sentience exist? As opposed to it not existing. I would like either the religious(don't care what religion) or the scientific(don't care what branch).

These questions are what spawned both religion and science thousands of years ago.

El Diablo

stop questioning everything.what is, just is.what is not, is just not.

not everything will have an answer.not everything has to.

live and let live.to each their own.

don't believe what anyone tells you about the nature of reality or existence.they don't know. no one knows.the only people who know are dead.and they're not talking.

anyone who claims to know anything about "god" or the "afterlife" is a bullsh*tter.they don't know. no one knows.anyone who thinks they know is ignorant, arrogant, or has an agenda fueled by external motivations (ego/power/control/wealth/respect/etc).

there's not a single religion on Earth that has all the answers.or any of the answers. because no one can have the answers. no one knows. because there's no way to know without being dead. and once you're dead there's no way to tell anyone.

just enjoy your time being alive and try to improve the world around you while you're here.that's all anyone can really hope for. you only get one life to live and you can't take the money with you when it's over.

HydraulicWaRiOr

stop questioning everything.what is, just is.what is not, is just not.

not everything will have an answer.not everything has to.

live and let live.to each their own.

don't believe what anyone tells you about the nature of reality or existence.they don't know. no one knows.the only people who know are dead.and they're not talking.

anyone who claims to know anything about "god" or the "afterlife" is a bullsh*tter.they don't know. no one knows.anyone who thinks they know is ignorant, arrogant, or has an agenda fueled by external motivations (ego/power/control/wealth/respect/etc).

there's not a single religion on Earth that has all the answers.or any of the answers. because no one can have the answers. no one knows. because there's no way to know without being dead. and once you're dead there's no way to tell anyone.

just enjoy your time being alive and try to improve the world around you while you're here.that's all anyone can really hope for. you only get one life to live and you can't take the money with you when it's over.

According to the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, you would still indeed be alive after death. We are non-religious, and we hate the thought of any crap religious ideals about the afterlife, but evidence all over the world including some of our own experiences lead us to believe that there is indeed life after death, but in the form of someone who is still present on this earth rather than the ridiculous idea of someone being magically being teleported to another dimension. So either if you are dormant or active after death, science confims that there is indeed an afterlife no matter what the circumstances are.And just as we say that the universe popped out of nowhere, it is in the bible that says that the god of the Christians had also popped out of nowhere, and they believe that they can cover it up with their hypothesis of "timelessness" where their god has always existed, which is 10x stupider than anything else in that crap religion.

According to the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, you would still indeed be alive after death.

that's not exactly how the Law of Conservation works.matter (as far as we know it) cannot be entirely destroyed or created from nothing. but this doesn't mean you're "alive after death." that would be a very poor way to describe the point you're trying to make. the Law simply means that our bio-electrical energy exists after our flesh and blood body deteriorates. the energy that animates and gives us life (which can be measured, by the way) is contained within our metabolic systems as long as our physical body is intact.

that energy is finally free to leave the human shell the moment we die, because it's no longer being used to power our metabolism or cell functions.but once it leaves the body we obviously have no idea what happens to it or what it experiences. we don't know if it dissipates and becomes the energy in the plants or animals or sky, or if it stays together and retains the human spirit/soul or whatever you want to call it of the person it used to be.

like I said though, we're basically in agreement.it's crazy for anyone to think that after you're dead there's some magical cloud city waiting for you. it's just as crazy to believe that there's another magical city of fire and brimstone waiting for people who were bad. it doesn't make sense when you think about it, but of course most religious people don't think. that's exactly why they're religious.there's no way to know what happens to human energy after we're dead, but it's simply nonsense to believe that it goes and lives amongst a pearly-gated community in the clouds for the rest of eternity.

the word "afterlife" is just a bad term.because it assumes that whatever comes after your current life will look and/or feel like your current life, just in a different place.which is ridiculous. people need to understand that opnce you remove consciousness and awareness from the physical body (AKA once you die), then you no longer experience the world as your body would have. there's no longer the 5 senses, not as we know them. there's no way to know if a dead "spirit" can see/hear/think/feel or anything. there's no way to know if there's even such thing as "spirits."

the biggest problem humans have when discussing the nature of life/death and reality is that we are confined by our own biology. it makes it hard for us to consider other possibilities only because those possibilities don't fit in with our own chemical makeup. what I mean is this: our lives as we know them are finite. they have a clear beginning and a clear end. this is one of the few fundamental truths we can observe about humans. and so because of this, we tend to think that EVERYTHING must have a definite beginning and end. the universe, space, time, etc.

and the problem of course is that technically, there's no logic in that.just because our lives are finite doesn't mean that everything is finite.

I don't believe in the Big Bang for instance. only because the Big Bang purports to be the beginning of the universe based on measurable laws of physics.I think the Big Bang might have happened, for whatever reason. I think it might have happened and had some profound and important effect on what our universe looks like right now. but I sincerely doubt that it was the beginning of everything.

I tend to believe that the universe has always been, and that it will always be.but people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around that concept because it doesn't match the small, petty life cycle of individual beings like us.

just because some living things are born and die, I don't think that everything must have a beginning and end.we just need to relax and realize that it's all always been here, this space we call the universe and the matter inside of it. it's just taken on different forms through time as the vibration of particles expand and contract. as you know, we are all the same thing. every one of us is composed of the same stuff. and as you know, the deeper you go you learn that everything is one. we might be spread apart in the physical realm - the 4th dimension in which we experience our current life - but on some level we are all connected. everything is connected.

down at the very base, we are all made from the same building blocks.the same blocks that make up the desk we sit at, the chair we sit in, and the computer we type in. they make up our house, our clothes, our food, our organs, our brain, even our kitchen sink. it's all made of the same stuff in different arrangements. it has always existed, since the beginning of time if there is such a thing.

it really is beautiful. and being aware of all this only makes me appreciate life that much more.I wish more people could come to this realization that we might work together rather than step on each other. because it really is amazing what people are capable of on their own, not to mention what happens when bright minds come together with mutual respect. our planet and our species are capable of such greatness but we've yet to figure out how to grasp it without corrupting ourselves.

lol.that turned out to be more than I had planned to write. oh well, good thing it's a lovely Sunday afternoon that I don't have to spend in church like an idiot.

d0mm2k8

the professor said something that stuck with me - we use religion to teach morals, have something to believe in and empower us, and answer questions science can't answer.

For me science, in one way or another, answers all the questions I have. Science gives me something to believe in and empower me much in the same way the professor says religion does.

As El_Diablo said, we are all manifestations of exactly the same things; a mixture of different arrangements of elementary particles, energy (though I suppose, if you want, energy and matter are themselves different manifestations of the same thing) and chemical reactions. We all obey the exact same laws of this three dimensional universe, the outside of which we can only hypothesise but never really comprehend.

Where did we come from then? We just popped up spontaneously? The universe itself, everything we know and live in, just came out of no where? I'm not a math or science person, so that whole notion just sounds, well, ridiculous to my ears.

So who created god ? I mean you can't say the universe coming from nothing is stupid but god coming from nothing is perfectly believable..

God came from a time you didn't know and will end in a time you do not also know. I don't know. That's what my Jehova's Witness friend said, or how I understood what he said.

I can compare God to 'zero' in the number line. Zero is the origin. Infinite numbers, both negative and positive, extends from all sides. We know that this numbers came from the origin or zero, but we do not know how did zero existed in the first place. We accept the number line as true, or a fact, as much as how theists(like me) believe in the existence of God.

But.

I swore to myself to be balanced everytime. God may have just came from imagination, or the effects of marijuana. In the bible, the angels usually come from the fire of some grass.

"Noah's ark" story is similar to a story in the Greek Mythology.

To end this with some quote, look at my signature.

edit: and uhh, for the bump, i'm just looking for a debate that I can answer, and this is what I found

Irviding

Just to mention, God coming from nothing is perfectly believable. God, or at least the one I believe in, is not some white guy with a beard that sits on clouds and casts spells on people. It's more complicated than that.

El Diablo

when God is merely Superman and can do anything and exist outside the purview of all rationale explanation, then I don't see how we (as the human race) can ever have a fair/reasonable discussion about spirituality or existence at all.

if people want to believe in god they have to admit (first and foremost) that they believe in something that has zero evidence and zero logic behind it. only then can we move on to the more important questions about life and reality.

but all religions are basically predicated on the notion that God is everywhere and can do everything at any time.if you want to believe that, that's fine.

but you cannot bring that into a SANE debate about the topic of "his" existence or influence on the universe.there's no place for such nonsense in a rational discussion because it's infallible, indefensible, and unassailable. it doesn't belong in the conversation because it's impenetrable.

we can have healthy discussions about our existentialism, but not until the faith-based side of the argument admits that its position does not hold a candle to the skeptic-based side. you'll have to meet us on some kind of common ground, and the explanation that God is Superman does not belong there. it gets us nowhere. it's absurd.

I can compare God to 'zero' in the number line. Zero is the origin. Infinite numbers, both negative and positive, extends from all sides. We know that this numbers came from the origin or zero, but we do not know how did zero existed in the first place. We accept the number line as true, or a fact, as much as how theists(like me) believe in the existence of God.

There's a bit wrong with this idea. Mainly, comparing an ineffable God or gods to a totally relatable number line. It diminishes the idea of your God and it also does not work properly. We know zero. We know how the concept of zero came to be, and we know how it fits in the natural world. We do not know how God fits in the natural world.

Saying "we accept the number line as true" does not matter. Even if you did not hold it true in your mind, it would still be the fundamental language of the universe. Numbers do not need you to validate themselves, they are independent of us. God, is disputable.

3niX

@Tyler - The first part of your post is actually quite interesting and I somewhat agree. However, I think he was right in using numbers as a way of explaining his point of view because the only other option would be to leave it unclarified (since we can only explain things in terms others can understand and relate to).

QUOTE

Numbers do not need you to validate themselves, they are independent of us. God, is disputable.

Actually, the existence of the concept of numbers depends on us (because we created them) and hence they arent really independent in the complete meaning of the word. Now, we could argue whether a concept dies when its forgotten or whether it lives forever as an independent and abstract entity but I fear that might detract from the topic at hand. Though you are correct that numbers dont need the acceptance of an individual to be valid.

Furthermore, the literal interpretation of God found in the bible might be disputable (in fact it is) but you cant disprove the concept of God in its entirety. Theres just no way of proving nor disproving God. The issue is pretty much ingrained in the concept.

Tyler

...but you cant disprove the concept of God in its entirety. Theres just no way of proving nor disproving God. The issue is pretty much ingrained in the concept.

Oh, I didn't intend to touch on that. I don't have the resources or clarity to argue if a god exists, but I can dispute it's need in the world. Which, is really the only absolute way to change someone's mind on the subject. Comparing God to flying spaghetti monsters or teacups around Saturn is no way to open one's mind, I've found.

3niX

Oh, I didn't intend to touch on that. I don't have the resources or clarity to argue if a god exists, but I can dispute it's need in the world. Which, is really the only absolute way to change someone's mind on the subject. Comparing God to flying spaghetti monsters or teacups around Saturn is no way to open one's mind, I've found.

Oh, Im glad were on the same wavelength then.

Theres nothing worse than trying to persuade someone to accept your view without even trying to understand the other side of the view.

Irviding

when God is merely Superman and can do anything and exist outside the purview of all rationale explanation, then I don't see how we (as the human race) can ever have a fair/reasonable discussion about spirituality or existence at all.

if people want to believe in god they have to admit (first and foremost) that they believe in something that has zero evidence and zero logic behind it. only then can we move on to the more important questions about life and reality.

But what if God is that very rationale explanation? You're debating me on this as one would debate a regular born-again Christian. I've said at least 10 times now I don't subscribe to the bearded man casting magic upon people. What if it is a spiritual force simply unknown to science? What if that spiritual force truly is science? Some of the greatest physicists in history, like Einstein, held that view.

What's wrong with Deism in its simplest form to you anyway? You're very close-minded here, compared to your normal, more liberal viewpoints elsewhere. But then again, we liberals seem to have that problem in general; we have an open mind towards all lifestyles and accept everyone, except religion. Accepting that is not allowed.

I think not.I've studied virtually every religion that can be studied (has source text, has a history dating back at least 200 years).

when I wasn't filling my major with political science and economics I was taking philosophy and comparative religious classes because they were fascinating. I may only be in my twenties, but I've already considered many possibilities regarding the big questions in life; who are we? where are we from? where are we going?

chalking these answers up to a an all-powerful, unquestionable, infallible, and unshakable dictator in the sky seems like THE LEAST rationale way to explain the natural world.

QUOTE

But then again, we liberals seem to have that problem in general; we have an open mind towards all lifestyles and accept everyone, except religion. Accepting that is not allowed.

we accept that it has a place in life to some extent.we accept that it will probably never go away (the weak need their crutch, their opiate).

what we have a problem with is blind faith.blind faith makes otherwise good people do evil things.

the Pope makes public addresses in which he states that using condoms is a greater blasphemy than living with HIV/AIDS.how many millions of people will suffer and die because of such ludicrous dogma that has no basis in reality?

this is where our problem with religion comes from.I have no problem if you want to be religious in your personal life with your family.

but check that sh*t at the door.leave it at home. it has no place in the modern world.

Leftcoast

According to the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, you would still indeed be alive after death.

that's not exactly how the Law of Conservation works.matter (as far as we know it) cannot be entirely destroyed or created from nothing. but this doesn't mean you're "alive after death." that would be a very poor way to describe the point you're trying to make. the Law simply means that our bio-electrical energy exists after our flesh and blood body deteriorates. the energy that animates and gives us life (which can be measured, by the way) is contained within our metabolic systems as long as our physical body is intact.

that energy is finally free to leave the human shell the moment we die, because it's no longer being used to power our metabolism or cell functions.but once it leaves the body we obviously have no idea what happens to it or what it experiences. we don't know if it dissipates and becomes the energy in the plants or animals or sky, or if it stays together and retains the human spirit/soul or whatever you want to call it of the person it used to be.

The first law of thermodynamic = "law of conservation"

The 1st law states: E in - E out = Delta E system ... Energy In -(minus) Energy out = Change in Energy of the system. Or Net energy transfer by heat, work and mass = change in internal, kinetic, potential, and more... energies.

Basically, when making engineering or scientific calculations, you must account for all energy in any form that it can exist.

The second law of thermodynamics basically states that energy flows from high energy to low energy. It's certainly more complicated than that but I don't have a simple explanation so feel free to in read/learn more on your own.

Short story long, any energy retained by a body would leave predominantly as heat and chemical energy nothing more... of course if the body was on a cliff it will still have potential energy but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.

QUOTE

I don't believe in the Big Bang for instance. only because the Big Bang purports to be the beginning of the universe based on measurable laws of physics.I think the Big Bang might have happened, for whatever reason. I think it might have happened and had some profound and important effect on what our universe looks like right now. but I sincerely doubt that it was the beginning of everything.

I tend to believe that the universe has always been, and that it will always be.but people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around that concept because it doesn't match the small, petty life cycle of individual beings like us.

I agree completely, just because we don't have a scientific way/law/ect to say there was something before doesn't mean it happened the way it would if that was "truly the beginning".

Last drunk thought: Science and religion are like oil and water, they really don't mix and can't be used in conjunction, well the cook in me says other wise, but you catch my drift. If there is an all powerful god, god could just make the rules of science and it would appear to us that it's all just a day in the life.

Eviscero

when God is merely Superman and can do anything and exist outside the purview of all rationale explanation, then I don't see how we (as the human race) can ever have a fair/reasonable discussion about spirituality or existence at all.

if people want to believe in god they have to admit (first and foremost) that they believe in something that has zero evidence and zero logic behind it. only then can we move on to the more important questions about life and reality.

But what if God is that very rationale explanation? You're debating me on this as one would debate a regular born-again Christian. I've said at least 10 times now I don't subscribe to the bearded man casting magic upon people. What if it is a spiritual force simply unknown to science? What if that spiritual force truly is science? Some of the greatest physicists in history, like Einstein, held that view.

What's wrong with Deism in its simplest form to you anyway? You're very close-minded here, compared to your normal, more liberal viewpoints elsewhere. But then again, we liberals seem to have that problem in general; we have an open mind towards all lifestyles and accept everyone, except religion. Accepting that is not allowed.

The answer to the question "Why not believe, what if?" is simple. If your reasoning behind your defense of that position is, "What if this is the case and science just doesn't understand it?" you must see that that was the case for volumes of religious concepts. Floods, earthquakes, the sun, the wind...everything people didn't understand in an earlier time attributed them to some deity. Over time, we found that that is not a productive way to experience and learn about our world. Science continues to develop, and in this process, religion continues to deconstruct. The pattern is clear.

To suggest what you have suggested would be on par with saying, "Maybe there are dragons and unicorns in the world. Maybe we've just not found them yet. What if they simply can't be seen?"

You see, believing in "some spiritual force" is just as irrational and illogical as believing in "the bearded man." Without scientific evidence, ascribing existence to definitively unobservable entities is basically ludicrous.